And please consider GoatMan that you are obsessed with and hypnotized by........a book. You actually worship a book (as I once did). This is due to childhood indoctrination; you and I are/were victims of that. One of us woke up.

If there are no contextual clues as to why the beginning of Genesis is figurative, then I will take it literally. Later on, when someone has a dream (as a few folks did in the story of Joseph), I will see the dreams as figurative. The text says it's a dream and so we know now to start taking it figuratively. When the dream stops we go back to literal. [\quote]

I think this website has to be concerned with reading the Bible and other religious texts correctly

I have shown, and you seemed to agree, that you have a problem reading the Bible. I've read 14 versions of the Bible, how about you? I've also have read the Qu'ran, The Book of Mormon, and other religious texts concerning varying religions.

Your problem with us is: most of us actually have read the Bible, other books in concern to the Bible, and other religions. Christians have been coming here for years and the consensus, and you fit this bill, they have either never read the Bible or they have and only their interpretation is correct.

Take Lukvance, and skeptic as good examples. Old Church Guy seems to be one of the few who actually doesn't solely rely on his own interpretation.

Quote

because the WWGHA argument would otherwise be a straw man if it misattributed certain beliefs about God to people who don't actually believe that.

So, only a person like yourself knows anything about the Bible? An atheist couldn't know because they are an atheist? We've heard that before, too.

By the way: many of us here are former Christians. I am a former Southern Baptist, and a former member of the Southern Baptist Convention (through a former family church).

Quote

Therefore the Bible at least to that extent is evidence. It is the source/foundation of people's operating beliefs.

Now you're trying to put that circle in the square since the Bible is evidence of the people who believe in it: it must be true. That's nonsense. By your logic, any book must be true if it had an effect on their lives.

Quote

I'll agree I can't prove the Bible with the Bible but I can give insight into what a lot of theists believe by using the Bible.

Irrelevant. I can do the same with pornography: what does that prove? Nothing, therefore: irrelevant.

Quote

The other member asked a question to theists and I clarified what I, and theist, thinks. If you don't listen and try to understand then all you are doing is beating the straw man.

You desperately need to go back to Oz, and I'm not speaking about Australia. What you said is nonsense. The only theist you can show any sense of understanding of is yourself because every single theist in concern to the Bible interpret it to their viewpoint.

-Nam

« Last Edit: May 29, 2014, 07:37:45 PM by Nam »

Logged

Quote from: David Garrett Arnold

there are oceans of words aged in prayer,against geometric lines, and cloudbeaten skies;credulous allure—slowly captivated in hearts fair—trees and flowers bloomed in grace upon one's eyes.

If there are no contextual clues as to why the beginning of Genesis is figurative, then I will take it literally. Later on, when someone has a dream (as a few folks did in the story of Joseph), I will see the dreams as figurative. The text says it's a dream and so we know now to start taking it figuratively. When the dream stops we go back to literal. [\quote]

If so, please elaborate. You haven't actually addressed my question. In fact, you made it sound as if the bible is written in some sort of secret code - which I alluded to in my original post. Elaborate specifically about "contextual clues" please.

Edited for: formatting

« Last Edit: May 29, 2014, 08:21:32 PM by Jag »

Logged

“Be skeptical. But when you get proof, accept proof.” –Michael Specter

Nam you still haven't shown how my interpretation of Mark 10 is wrong other than saying that it's literal. Does literal mean wrong and if so why? Show me a contradiction within my interpretation or a different interpretation you think is correct and contradicts mine. I already explained why I think the Bible (or at least Mark) needs to be viewed as literal. Here it is again:

If it's a bad argument show me why you think so. You're the one offering considerably fewer arguments/pieces of evidence.

It seems like your last argument amounted to misreading what I said (I said the Bible is the source of some theistic belief and you jumped to the conclusion that therefore I think it's proven true- i just said its evidence relevant To understanding my beliefs not proof for the veracity I my beliefs. Porn could actually be relevant too if it helps explain someone's beliefs). And also you seemed to say that becuase I'm just one person I am wrong. You haven't shown my one view to differ from any other theist's view yet. You just claim it does

Someone having a dream (especially one that is in that same narrative interpreted as symbolic by the text and explained later) is a contextual clue- a fairly obvious one if you ask me. The dream about the sun and the moon bowing down is purely figurative in that the sun and moon did not bow down, it was just a dream. But Joesph says it means that he would be bowed down to by his father and mother. Then that literally happens. Without similar clues within the passage I take it literally.

Really ask about a passage you are unsure of if you actually care to learn.

Nam you still haven't shown how my interpretation of Mark 10 is wrong other than saying that it's literal. Does literal mean wrong and if so why? Show me a contradiction within my interpretation or a different interpretation you think is correct and contradicts mine. I already explained why I think the Bible (or at least Mark) needs to be viewed as literal. Here it is again:

If it's a bad argument show me why you think so. You're the one offering considerably fewer arguments/pieces of evidence.

It seems like your last argument amounted to misreading what I said (I said the Bible is the source of some theistic belief and you jumped to the conclusion that therefore I think it's proven true- i just said its evidence relevant To understanding my beliefs not proof for the veracity I my beliefs. Porn could actually be relevant too if it helps explain someone's beliefs). And also you seemed to say that becuase I'm just one person I am wrong. You haven't shown my one view to differ from any other theist's view yet. You just claim it does

I've already answered you, now you're circling back to the beginning. I have been extremely nice to you, no more.

-Nam

Logged

Quote from: David Garrett Arnold

there are oceans of words aged in prayer,against geometric lines, and cloudbeaten skies;credulous allure—slowly captivated in hearts fair—trees and flowers bloomed in grace upon one's eyes.

Just smite him and be done with it. He's the Agreeable Christian, which is the Christian who agrees with you then goes back to start again. Like the Mark thing he keeps bringing up with me, I tell him it's irrelevant, I explain why it's irrelevant, he somewhat agrees with me on it, and then circles back as if the conversation never happened.

He's a moron, and not even very good at being that.

-Nam

Logged

Quote from: David Garrett Arnold

there are oceans of words aged in prayer,against geometric lines, and cloudbeaten skies;credulous allure—slowly captivated in hearts fair—trees and flowers bloomed in grace upon one's eyes.

GoatMan, it is frankly shocking and very very sad that in this day & age, an adult can seriously believe in YEC, the Noah story, etc. But, this is the power of childhood indoctrination.

I'm curious; do you care about what's true, or do you merely care about defending the belief system that you were inculcated with? If you claim that you care about what is true, I would like you to provide us with the list of (atheistic) books which you've read which challenge/undermine/debunk your beliefs. From what you've posted so far here, I'm going to suspect that the number of books is at or near zero. May I suggest the following before we waste any more time with you here on this forum going around in circles or looking for the ever-moving goalposts:

Atheism Explained by David Ramsay Steele

Atheist Universe by David Mills

The God Virus by Darrel W. Ray

All can be found on Amazon.

I can recommend many others too, but one or more of these would be a good start.

Like the Mark thing he keeps bringing up with me, I tell him it's irrelevant, I explain why it's irrelevant, he somewhat agrees with me on it, and then circles back

I qualified the extent that i agreed with you. I said "I agree the bible doesn't have clear instructions to interpret it literally." But then I gave the reason why I still interpret it literally (the Cs Lewis argument).

Then you say that I "seemingly" agreed that I "have a problem reading the Bible." I didn't agree that I had a problem just that the Bible doesn't give directions to read it literally.

You don't have to respond and I will see that you believe anyone who reads the Bible literally has a problem (because the Romans used it for different reasons than the early Christians? I do admit you mentioned something along those lines which is an argument that the Bible could now not say the same thing it used to? Is this why reading the Bible literally is problematic?) Or you can respond in a way that isn't extemly kind as long as you tell me the reason for my problem. But when you make a claim that I've agreed to something I didn't, clearly at least one of us misunderstood the other and it warrants another look. I'll admit, I may be the one misunderstanding you and/or communicating in a way that caused a misunderstanding.

Star stuff thanks for the resources I may check those out

I've got work tomorrow and don't know if I'll be able to respond as frequently as i have the past few days

I'm curious; do you care about what's true, or do you merely care about defending the belief system that you were inculcated with? If you claim that you care about what is true, I would like you to provide us with the list of (atheistic) books which you've read which challenge/undermine/debunk your beliefs.

Just smite him and be done with it. He's the Agreeable Christian, which is the Christian who agrees with you then goes back to start again. Like the Mark thing he keeps bringing up with me, I tell him it's irrelevant, I explain why it's irrelevant, he somewhat agrees with me on it, and then circles back as if the conversation never happened.

He's a moron, and not even very good at being that.

-Nam

So you think he's talking to me too?

I'm not going to smite him, but I'm going to keep asking the visiting literalist theists to answer this question. I find certain kinds of thinking weirdly fascinating to watch. Eventually most of them derail, bail, or just fade away, but during the phase I find interesting, I'm trying to actually talk to them a little and see what I can make sense of - I'm interested in their processes, not their conclusions. But I have to talk to them about their conclusions to get what I'm interested in anyway, so I'm kind of stuck.

If they have a reasonable command of English[1] and aren't threatening us with eternal damnation (because that's just unfriendly), and aren't obvious overt lunatics, I'll give it a shot.

I'm not as much interested in what they think as I am in how they present it, the thought process behind it, what's going on inside their heads. The process, not the product (and I'm not going to arguing about whether or not they are actually "thinking", you know what I'm talking about ) and I'm not taking pot shots at anyone[2] with this post.

Ah! I see he responded directly to me, posting this lovely note to Nam anyway, will respond to GoatMan[3] next.

Someone having a dream (especially one that is in that same narrative interpreted as symbolic by the text and explained later) is a contextual clue- a fairly obvious one if you ask me. The dream about the sun and the moon bowing down is purely figurative in that the sun and moon did not bow down, it was just a dream. But Joesph says it means that he would be bowed down to by his father and mother. Then that literally happens. Without similar clues within the passage I take it literally.

Really ask about a passage you are unsure of if you actually care to learn.

Do you see why I might find this answer to be .... rather unsatisfying? Essentially, you've just told me that the way for me to interpret the bible correctly is to ask you passage by passage and you will tell me if it's a metaphor or literal.

You still are not addressing my question. I'm asking you to provide me with the mechanism you use to determine which way to interpret ANY passage - because what you are proposing is that I allow you to interpret them for me. Do you really mean to suggest that we go through the bible line by line, passage by passage, and you will tell me which ones are literal and which are metaphors? Do you really have that kind of free time? And how does that "help me" when you are not available to tell me? I'm trying to figure out HOW YOU FIGURE IT OUT. I've been abundantly clear in what I am asking.

Do you truly not understand my very simple question, or are you just stringing me along hoping that I don't put you on the spot? You can just be truthful and say you don't know how you do it; people will forgive you for ignorance far more readily than they will for lying, even lying by omission.

Logged

“Be skeptical. But when you get proof, accept proof.” –Michael Specter

Oh. I've read Antichrist by Nietzsche and long ago I read selfish gene by Dawkins. I've read one by hawking (complete history of everthing?). I've read parts of the Book of Mormon. I've read parts of WWGHA. I've read a book called the evolution controversy that was a comparison and explanation of Darwinism id and YEC. I've taken college biology and geology courses and read the corresponding textbooks

Like the Mark thing he keeps bringing up with me, I tell him it's irrelevant, I explain why it's irrelevant, he somewhat agrees with me on it, and then circles back

I qualified the extent that i agreed with you. I said "I agree the bible doesn't have clear instructions to interpret it literally." But then I gave the reason why I still interpret it literally (the Cs Lewis argument).

Then you say that I "seemingly" agreed that I "have a problem reading the Bible." I didn't agree that I had a problem just that the Bible doesn't give directions to read it literally.

You don't have to respond and I will see that you believe anyone who reads the Bible literally has a problem (because the Romans used it for different reasons than the early Christians? I do admit you mentioned something along those lines which is an argument that the Bible could now not say the same thing it used to? Is this why reading the Bible literally is problematic?) Or you can respond in a way that isn't extemly kind as long as you tell me the reason for my problem. But when you make a claim that I've agreed to something I didn't, clearly at least one of us misunderstood the other and it warrants another look. I'll admit, I may be the one misunderstanding you and/or communicating in a way that caused a misunderstanding.

Star stuff thanks for the resources I may check those out

I've got work tomorrow and don't know if I'll be able to respond as frequently as i have the past few days

You know what this entire reply tells me (technically, all your replies tell me this)? You skim comments. You don't read them. You probably (most likely) take the same process with the Bible.

You're an idiot. We're going to have fun with you. You're a chew toy: congratulations.

-Nam

Logged

Quote from: David Garrett Arnold

there are oceans of words aged in prayer,against geometric lines, and cloudbeaten skies;credulous allure—slowly captivated in hearts fair—trees and flowers bloomed in grace upon one's eyes.

I've read Antichrist by Nietzsche and long ago I read selfish gene by Dawkins. I've read one by Hawking (complete history of everthing?). I've read parts of the Book of Mormon. I've read a book called the evolution controversy that was a comparison and explanation of Darwinism id and YEC. I've taken college biology and geology courses and read the corresponding textbooks.

Two of those are about biology, one cosmology, and Mormonism is just christianity plus some additional stupid ideas. So I'd definitely suggest you'd do well to read one or more of the books I recommended. They are very recent/modern, and deal with the arguments for/against theism/atheism.

*You seem to link evolution with atheism; that is an error. You might want to join the majority of christians who accept (not "believe") the fact of evolution.

Quote

What books have you read that challenge your worldview?

I've read scads of books on the topic. I just now finished reading "The Believing Brain" by Michael Shermer (I would also recommend this). Again, I was a christian for the first ~25 years of my life, and non-theist for the last ~25 years. Because I am awake, reading any & all apologist material now is quite nauseating. Pretty much all material is special pleading; drips with presupposition, and can be dismissed at every turn with: "Unfortunately the evidence doesn't bear that out".

And here is my rule again: I read the Bible literally unless something IN THE TEXT points me to see that something is not literal. Let me list off a few general examples:John says he sees a VISION when writing revelation (or Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel)Jesus says the kingdom of heaven is LIKE so and so (the word "like" means he will be speaking in a metaphor)The text itself clearly gives a symbolic meaning (like in Hosea)Or when Jesus is teaching people and gives what is almost certainly a figurative statement : "Chop off your hand if it causes you to sin" and then later when He encounters sinners He doesn't have them literally do this or when He says "this is my body" as He gives them bread instead of a piece of His flesh.

Is this anything that a highschool Literature teacher would not expect from her students when reading, say, an autobiography. The genre is nonfiction and yet the author may use figurative language and the student can reasonably learn to distinguish figurative language from plain statements.